|
On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history.
Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands.
If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then.
|
On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then.
You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.
On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right?
|
love your beautiful maps and descriptions of resources but
short answer: NO
china has no records after the cultural revolution, sorry, no claims
btw, are intellectuals and dissenters being quashed in china? dictatorship is nothing but a bunch of pigs competing to see who's fatter.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Almost no country has any kind of binding documentation about their territory besides ''de facto'' and which in time gets (or doesnt) accepted as de iure (by other nations). There is no fair way to award these islands to any country, question is which nation has bigger inluence and how far they are prepared to go (e.g. how much they value it) to acquire it or deny them to other claimants.
Honestly I dont see China getting sole ownership of these provinces as political pressure they would have to wield to gain this one would make a huge huge backlash and destroy China`s image (that is give valid excuse for other nations in future clashes)
|
I dont really see any of those 'undisputable evidence' as being so undisputable, they are just loose claims and references to having been on the island at one point in time or another... None of them constitutes a proper claim
|
So who has the most guns?
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.spratlys.org/maps/1/China-claims-Paracel-Spratly-Islands.gif) So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. Why does Greece have a claim over Cyprus? Clearly Cyprus is closer to Turkey. History plays a large part of ownership.
I believe in freedom, so I believe that land should be governed by the leaders chosen by the people living on that land. Ask the native population of Cyprus (who overwhelmingly speak Greek) who they want to be governed by.
Ask the native population of the islands of the Spratlys, and you'll find that no one is talking because no one lives there, and no one cared about these stupid rocks, some of which are underwater when it's high tide, until they figured there was oil there. I believe Taiwan and Philippines have people living on some of the Spratlys (I think one of them even has an airfield on one of the islands), I dunno about other countries though.
Honestly I think private companies should just do exploration there and get whatever resources they want on a first come first served basis, because even though no one wants to admit it, the resources are the only thing that matter. The only thing is each country wants a monopoly on exploration there, which is why they're all claiming that it's part of their territory.
|
On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters. On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right?
This goes back to my earlier statement though, if China made a claim to Korea or Japan, should we all get behind them since they have historical claim there? I feel this is kind of strange.
If the Island's went undisputed, good for China, but since they are being disputed, I think their claim to Islands based on historical precedent is somewhat irrelevant.
|
Canada and Denmark are in a large-scale dick-waving war over Hans island.....
Seriously. You'll laugh when you realize how much money both countries have spent over this little hump of land between Greenland and Ellesmere island.....
|
Under historical western interpretation, land claims were usually done in the following way
exploration -> check
cataloging and mapping -> check
formal claim -> check
resolution of potentially contradictory claims -> none existed when claims were made
presence -> minimal but always existent
under any reasonable (non far western-skewed) interpretation of such precedents, the only way that the Chinese claims can be disputed is by its passage through different regimes, either at the end of the Qing dynasty or at the point of the CCP/GMD split at the conclusion of the Chinese civil war
|
On June 19 2011 03:30 Impervious wrote:
Canada and Denmark are in a large-scale dick-waving war over Hans island.....
Seriously. You'll laugh when you realize how much money both countries have spent over this little hump of land between Greenland and Ellesmere island.....
Lol, i heard about that, fair bit of gunboat diplomacy going on. Glad Norway and Russia were able to finally end our own territorial dispute just a few weeks ago.
|
So what do undeniable historical claims have to do with anything? I would say both Mexico and Britain have an undeniable historical claim over parts of the US. The difference is that the US is filled with Americans who have been living there for hundreds of years. From your historical timeline, the Nansha Islands have little to no Chinese population, and the Chinese have allowed foreigners to settle there are build strategic bases there for about a hundred years.
On one hand, people shouldn't build things(especially militarily significant things) on land someone else claims. However, I see this as only China's fault if they made no effort to prevent this occurrence, despite the fact that they a great deal of time to do so. Geographically, it looks as though the Philippines have a very logical claim over the area, as well as a national security interest in preventing China from claim islands right of their coast. You should know well that China already puts extreme military pressure on the nations around it, simply by existing.
|
whats wif all this territory disputes lately
|
all your base are belong to us?
it should belong to Philippines :3
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. Why does Greece have a claim over Cyprus? Clearly Cyprus is closer to Turkey. History plays a large part of ownership.
except no one really inhabits those islands unlike Cyprus which has a nice population to which can decide which country they align with.
|
On June 19 2011 03:30 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters. On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? This goes back to my earlier statement though, if China made a claim to Korea or Japan, should we all get behind them since they have historical claim there? I feel this is kind of strange. If the Island's went undisputed, good for China, but since they are being disputed, I think their claim to Islands based on historical precedent is somewhat irrelevant.
I do not understand why you think it is irrelevant. So I will try to illustrate. China has for more then 2000 years has record and claim of these islands. These records go all the way back even before some countries now are countries at all. Suddenly, one country claims that these islands are theirs simply because it's closer to them.
I understand that this issue is not easy. But my logic tells me that between the two, I'd believe someone who has a (longer) record of being there and it being officially part of its geography.
|
On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right?
I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.
As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it.
So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus.
EDIT: the fact of the matter is, China's claim over these southern islands, given the evidence you gave, is as good as its claim over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. People from these parts wants to revolt every single day, as seen from chaos from the regions.
|
I don't know too much about this, but is this an area like the Gaza Strip and such for Israel? At least in that case it's connected to Israel.
From glancing at the map, it seems like the islands should belong to another country, but I guess if they own possession of the land, it's theirs.
|
Judging from what you've told us the islands are absolutely chinese.
|
On June 19 2011 03:18 Probe1 wrote:
The level of shit one liners for such a detailed post is abhorrent. This is such an interesting issue that I'm hesitant to weigh in immediately, though I find the geographical distance from China curious. Despite repeated historical claims by China I still do not understand how they have a right to the islands more so than the Philippines, Vietnam or even Malaysia.
My uninformed gut reaction opinion is if China claims ownership and the Philippines engages in open military conflict, the United States should not become involved. I'll post more once I've thought more in depth.
Thank you for this thread, it is very interesting.
I'm afraid that your gut reaction would only make sense IF the Philippines was the aggressor in a shooting incident. Removal of Chinese territorial markers in a segement of the Spratlys that is already claimed and controlled by the Philippines is entirely within the country's prerogative in keeping control of what it already has.
To respond to the OP; I'm afraid it misrepresents the other claimants in a negative light and is not balanced enough in refuting their claims to the islands, especially in certain segments like the French claim on the southern part of the island chain that was devolved to Vietnam, and the fact that the Mischief Reef is actually right in the middle of the archipelago and has had structural developments, mostly of a military nature, done by China ever since they were spotted in 1995.
Also, it's quite unwarranted to post this as a separate topic when this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233515 is already up as a more complete discussion and the post could have easily been placed there instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
